Today i officially felt left behind with being a Canon shooter

[ykn123]

Please pardon what is likely to be a stupid question, but I"m still trying to learn the mirrorless jargon....I've seen it referred to here twice....

What is "EYE-AF"?

That's a new term for me....

TIA,

cayenne

it automaticylly detects the eye of the model and tracks it to get a sharp image with focus being on the model's eye. the eos M50 has it but only in one-shot AF i think, sony's A7III and such has it and it seems to work well - just google it and you will find youtube videos demonstrating it

 

[jolyonralph]

The Nikon might not have EYE AF but this is something that could be added as a firmware update

 

[Mikehit]

OK.

My problem with one slot is the fact that Nikon is clearly aiming towards pros considering the pricetag. One card will simply not cut it.

Pros use the 6D which has one slot.
I can fully understand why some insist on 2 slots but this has quietened down a lot in recent years because of the reliability of cards.

 

[Don Haines]

I'm a Cannon shooter, and I feel like my Cannon is primitive and outdated.....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd read the DPR hands on reviews carefully. The Z7 falls short in all the important areas when compared to Nikon DSLR's. Except for using it with smaller lenses or if the smaller body is a benefit, its pretty much a step down in performance.

I'd be very careful about getting one without understanding what you lose.

As mirrorless cameras go, its a good camera, just not as good as Nikon's own DSLR's.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Please pardon what is likely to be a stupid question, but I"m still trying to learn the mirrorless jargon....I've seen it referred to here twice....

What is "EYE-AF"?

That's a new term for me....

TIA,

cayenne

EyE AF is a feature invented by Canon and used on a few of its older film cameras (I have a Elan 7E with eye AF).

Basically, the camera follows the movement of your eye and attempts to Select the AF point based on where your eye is directed.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

OK.

My problem with one slot is the fact that Nikon is clearly aiming towards pros considering the pricetag. One card will simply not cut it.

I'm not so sure they are aiming at Pro's, it looks like prosumers to me. Even compared to its prosumer DSLR's, it falls short on performance, and has a lot of compromises. DPR has a very detailed hands-on review, and while they do not really criticize it directly, almost every aspect falls short of DSLR performance, I started to feel bad for Nikon as I read page after page of areas where it fell short.

 

[AlanF]

EyE AF is a feature invented by Canon and used on a few of its older film cameras (I have a Elan 7E with eye AF).

Basically, the camera follows the movement of your eye and attempts to Select the AF point based on where your eye is directed.

The meaning has changed. As pointed out in an earlier post, Eye-AF means the AF locks onto the eye of the subject and makes sure it is in perfect focus. AF will remain glued to the subject's eye as the subject moves around. I have tried it with the RX10 IV and found it works remarkably well.

 

[amorse]

Will it? Didn't they take a dual-card out of one of the recent updates?

The D7200 had two, the D7500 has one.

The new Nikon Z7 and Z6 mirrorless both have single card slots. Not an issue for me, but many seem to be worked up about it. I'd be more worked up about the 330 photo rating per battery charge on the Z7 - that is a deal breaker for me!

It seems like a double standard to ridicule Canon for their releases missing some of these features and then praise Nikon for cannibalizing the D850 with the Z7 when the D850 can do over 1800 photos on one charge and has double card slots.

Edit - looking again, some of this has already been mentioned above. Sorry for the duplication!

 

[dtaylor]

BUT today with the z6/z7 i really feel left behind.

I don't. I'm bored with mirrorless hype.

What does mirrorless really, truly bring to the table?

• Size and weight savings, but only with smaller sensors. With FF the differences are insignificant.
• EVF. I admit I think live exposure preview is useful, but EVFs still can't touch OVFs for overall viewing experience.
• Potentially faster fps / quieter shooting. But few bodies have realized this potential.

Other than that? Adapter headaches and more things to buy.

To the degree that the z7 is a "better" camera than my 5Ds it is so for the same reason as the D850: it was released much later. And you'll notice that I have "better" in quotes because while I acknowledge the video gains, faster fps, and greater DR, none of those things would really affect my photography. (I'm interested in stills so the gap in video is irrelevant to me.)

I am interested in seeing what Canon does for FF mirrorless. But even if Canon took another two years to release a FF MILC body I wouldn't be tempted to switch brands. (I doubt they'll do this. I think we'll see the first Canon FF MILC in early 2019.)

I don't get the hype at all. Honestly something like the M5 or the Fuji system have more appeal to me as a 2nd lightweight kit. I'm not interested in FF mirrorless at all.

 

[AlanF]

It's rubbish at high speed bursts: 9 fps but the focus is locked after the first frame and you are getting AF at every frame only at 5.5 fps.- that's only 0.5 fps faster than a 5DS. Sony is streets ahead: R10 IV, 24 fps; A9 20 fps; and A7RIII 10 fps, with AF between each shot. Also, there is no means of toggling between different AF modes as you can with Sony. The Z7 might be enough to keep Nikon users on board but it is second rate. Let's hope Canon can do better.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It's rubbish at high speed bursts: 9 fps but the focus is locked after the first frame and you are getting AF at every frame only at 5.5 fps.- that's only 0.5 fps faster than a 5DS. Sony is streets ahead: R10 IV, 24 fps; A9 20 fps; and A7RIII 10 fps, with AF between each shot. Also, there is no means of toggling between different AF modes as you can with Sony. The Z7 might be enough to keep Nikon users on board but it is second rate. Let's hope Canon can do better.

I think that demonstrates how difficult it actually is to get performance that is close to a DSLR. Sony has done better because they have put the research into it while for Nikon, its only in the past 2 or 3 years that they decided to start getting serious.

Canon has stated that they wanted to wait to produce a mirrorless camera that could compete with a DSLR. They have put a huge amount of effort and expense into their dual pixel sensors, its now paying off and may actually make a FF Mirrorless competitive, but I really do not expect better.

 

[tron]

I only kind of feel behind with the announcement of 500 f/5.6 defractive optics lens at 3600. I do have the 400 DO II which is FANTASTIC but I do not feel confident with the 1.4XIII with it. I would like to have access to a longer DO lens. I have read about 600 DO f/4 a couple of years ago but that lens would weigh a lot more than 400 DO (obviously) and it would have a rather big (600/4 = 15cm+ construction) front element. A 600 5.5 DO lens would be more practical. It would be the perfect birding lens. Anything else is satisfying for me (5D4, 5DsR, white lenses, UWA, etc)

 

[crazyrunner33]

I don't. I'm bored with mirrorless hype.

What does mirrorless really, truly bring to the table?

• Size and weight savings, but only with smaller sensors. With FF the differences are insignificant.
• EVF. I admit I think live exposure preview is useful, but EVFs still can't touch OVFs for overall viewing experience.
• Potentially faster fps / quieter shooting. But few bodies have realized this potential.

Other than that? Adapter headaches and more things to buy.

IBIS, completely silent shooting options, and short flange distances to allow you to adapt to many different lenses. You might not benefit from some of these options, but there's many people who value these options.

 

[AlanF]

I only kind of feel behind with the announcement of 500 f/5.6 defractive optics lens at 3600. I do have the 400 DO II which is FANTASTIC but I do not feel confident with the 1.4XIII with it. I would like to have access to a longer DO lens. I have read about 600 DO f/4 a couple of years ago but that lens would weigh a lot more than 400 DO (obviously) and it would have a rather big (600/4 = 15cm+ construction) front element. A 600 5.5 DO lens would be more practical. It would be the perfect birding lens. Anything else is satisfying for me (5D4, 5DsR, white lenses, UWA, etc)

I agree that only the 500/4 PF makes me covetous. However, my 400mm DO II is fantastic with the 1.4xIII in terms of IQ - and lenstip's measurements with the 1.4xTC bear this out as at 560 it is as sharp as the bare 100-400mm II at 400mm. The 500/4 is just so much lighter than the 400/4 II that I would like Canon to produce an equivalent one.

 

[3kramd5]

The Nikon might not have EYE AF but this is something that could be added as a firmware update

Yes presumably it’s a function which could be added. I imagine there is an IP barrier at the moment.

 

[3kramd5]

The meaning has changed. As pointed out in an earlier post, Eye-AF means the AF locks onto the eye of the subject and makes sure it is in perfect focus. AF will remain glued to the subject's eye as the subject moves around. I have tried it with the RX10 IV and found it works remarkably well.

The meaning didn’t change.
Canon calls the function Spokane mentioned “Eye Controlled Focus,” not “Eye Detection AF” or “Eye AF,” which are the Canon and Sony terms, respectively, for the function you described.

 

[tron]

I agree that only the 500/4 PF makes me covetous. However, my 400mm DO II is fantastic with the 1.4xIII in terms of IQ - and lenstip's measurements with the 1.4xTC bear this out as at 560 it is as sharp as the bare 100-400mm II at 400mm. The 500/4 is just so much lighter than the 400/4 II that I would like Canon to produce an equivalent one.

I somehow struggle with the 1.4XIII and 400 DO. I did have some success with 7D2+400DO+1.4XIII but not always and the quality of 7D2 lacks behind 5DsR (Actually I learned that from you, bought my 5DsR and liked it a lot in addition to verifying this). Also, the 560mm focal length makes AFMA very difficult due to distance requirements (and I am not sure I always agree with Reikan's findings).

 

[AlanF]

I somehow struggle with the 1.4XIII and 400 DO. I did have some success with 7D2+400DO+1.4XIII but not always and the quality of 7D2 lacks behind 5DsR (Actually I learned that from you, bought my 5DsR and liked it a lot in addition to verifying this). Also, the 560mm focal length makes AFMA very difficult due to distance requirements (and I am not sure I always agree with Reikan's findings).

That's odd. I find f/5.6 well-behaved with Reiken but not f/8 (400mm + 2xTC or 100-400mm II + 2xTC). I wonder if you have a bum 1.4xTC? I had 2 and found my first one was weak, OK at the centre but poor outside. I find at 400mm, the 100-400mm II and DO II are pretty similar but put on the (good) 1.4xTC, the DO leaps ahead.

 

[dtaylor]

IBIS, completely silent shooting options, and short flange distances to allow you to adapt to many different lenses. You might not benefit from some of these options, but there's many people who value these options.

I mentioned "potentially quieter shooting", but also pointed out that this hasn't been fully realized. There's not a huge gap between MILC and, say, a Canon DSLR in silent shooting mode.

I didn't mention IBIS and that is a nice positive in the z7. But it's also not truly a "mirrorless" advantage. It has been done in SLRs.

I agree that MILC is the way to go for adapted manual focus glass.